According to the time records, HJK oy’s employee has worked more than a thousand overtime hours in the last three years. But according to the employer, there is no reason to pay them.
Veikkausliiga club An employee of HJK has sued HJK oy due to salary claims.
The employee is applying in court for a total of 54,000 euros in wage claims for the years 2021–2023. HJK oy denies all the plaintiff’s claims and asks the district court to dismiss the lawsuit.
The employee requests the Helsinki district court to oblige HJK oy to pay the wage claims, which mostly consist of unpaid overtime compensation and Sunday work compensation and weekly rest compensation. The employee justifies his demands based on the working hours law.
According to the challenge application, in August 2019 HJK oy started tracking working hours using an Excel file. According to the employee, the time records show that his regular working time of 40 hours has been exceeded by a considerable number of hours.
For example, in 2021 the excess has been 358 hours and in the years 2021–2023 a total of 1,159 hours.
The employee according to HJK oy has not followed the working time marked by the employee. In the summons, it is stated that the plaintiff and other employees have taken up in the fall of 2023 the general overtime in the workplace and its irreplaceability.
According to the employee, the employer has only then paid attention to working time monitoring and in October 2023 gave the personnel new instructions regarding working time.
Due to the fear of possible retaliation and his passion for work, the employee has previously not dared to demand compensation for work that exceeds his regular working hours, Sunday work, or underworking weekly rests.
The employee has believed that the employer would have admitted its mistakes related to compliance with the law and tried to find an amicable solution to the matter in the fall of 2023.
According to the employee, the CEO of HJK oy Aki Riihilahti and commercial manager Sirja Luomaniemi have accused the plaintiff in October 2023 of excessive hourly registrations and unilaterally announced the employee’s personal working time as three hours a day in order to equalize the previous working hours.
The employee has requested compensation for the hours worked, which the employer has not agreed to, citing the lack of written overtime consent.
HJK Ltd has denied all the employee’s claims in its response to the district court. HJK oy justifies its objection with the employment contract, because what has been agreed about the work and how the plaintiff has been allowed to define his work himself.
HJK oy’s primary objection is that the Working Time Act does not apply to the plaintiff’s employment. The company justifies its objection with a section of the Working Time Act, according to which the law does not apply to an employee whose working time is not defined in advance and the use of working time is not monitored, and who can decide on his own working time.
According to HJK oy, working time has been supposed to be 40 hours a week.
In the second place, HJK oy disputes the claims for overtime compensation on the basis that the company has had instructions for employees that overtime may not be done without the written consent of the supervisor.
According to HJK oy, the plaintiff has not been asked to work overtime and he has not asked for the supervisor’s consent to work overtime.
According to HJK oy, due to the seasonality of the tasks, the work should have been balanced according to the seasons. HJK oy says that it has not been possible to devote as much time to the plaintiff’s duties as the employee has stated.